I think most of the shouting at damn foreigners is for the Russians that write in Cyrillic!

I am still puzzled by how well hsrminer works for you and how poorly it works for me. First you get 1.38 MH/s while I only got 1.23 MH/s - that's 12% more already - and then my actual earnings at the pool were only 76.3% of what I should have made based on average difficulty for the time period.

My test with ccminer-klaust has only been running for 1.75 hours but earnings are pretty much exactly as predicted by whattomine so far.

Difficulty on ZEN has been really high today so it's as good a time as any to have the 6x GTX 1060 rig do another neoscrypt mining test. The results reported in the quote above were with hsrminer claiming it was hashing at 4.32 MH/s. The KlausT fork of ccminer (v8.19) is reporting a hashrate of 4.06 MH/s after 10 minutes of operation (it does take awhile for neoscrypt to get up to speed for some reason), so about 6.4% less than what hsrminer was claiming. However, I only got credited for 29 coins instead of the 38 that whattomine said I should have received given the hashrate and average difficulty, which comes out to a 24% haircut... If I get screwed by the same percentage with ccminer then either both are lying at exactly the same magnitude or else I can't trust whattomine and/or the pool.

I'll give that a shot; thanks.

If you speak French you fear some will jump over you?!?  

I suspect this an idiom that did not survive my poor translation skills (I suppose I could plug the sentence into Google Translate, but where's the fun in that?)

On a more relevant note, I changed skins in MSI AB - I was using the old v3 skin  - and now I see that my core voltage occasionally drops even lower than yours at times so I am guessing you didn't manually tweak it lower. If my guess is incorrect then please tell me how to lower core voltage because it seems all I am able to do is raise it.

Is there a way to unsubscribe from threads you have posted in; that is, to remove those threads from the "Show new replies to your posts" function?

I didn't think you were being dismissive, but I do think you jumped to the (reasonable) conclusion that I was just another clueless and lazy noob. Consequently, what I was asking and what you answered were only somewhat related. 


More less; more specifically, that the data input fields on the calculator do not match the data output fields of the wallet:

1. PoS difficulty should be given in the "triangle" tool tip, not in the green check mark. I did not hover the mouse over the green check mark because I just assumed it was only telling me it was connected to the network and synced to the blockchain.
2. "Number of Coins per Input" in the calculator is not given by the wallet.
3. "Number of Inputs" is given in both.
4. "Age of Transaction" in the calculator is a single field; the same data in the wallet are presented as min, avg and max (with no contextual definition of those words - ie, one would have to know that min age is 1 day and max age is 16 days; presumably, then, avg is 8.5 days).
5.  Finally, the wallet gives coin weight in days while no corresponding field is found in the calculator.

Absent a full understanding of the whitepaper, then, it is not possible to be sure if the output of the calculator is even realistic, much less correct (insofar as a probability estimate can be correct...) so playing around with the numbers and fields on the calculator is unlikely to prove enlightening.


Yes, you walked down the path I intended you to (cue the Admiral Ackbar quote now)... There is a use case in my analogy that falls between that of the casual user of money and the investor in securities/derivatives/currencies/whatever: the person "investing" money in a savings account or CD. This type of investment requires minimal knowledge and minimal oversight* and seems to me the closest analog to staking coins for a chance at receiving a block every so often. Hence why I am pressing for a clear and simple explanation of how to figure out the equivalent of an interest rate that one is likely to receive from x number of coins, of y days maturity, held over z period of time.


* - aside from a few months in 2009 and a few years in the early 1930s, anyway...

En Francais! Sorry, no cedilla on the US keyboard. Also, my French is really, really rusty.

It looks like what is holding me back is not lowering the core voltage. I've been trying to convince MSI AB to let me do that but haven't had success yet...

A valid question, and the winner of each of my comparisons will be determined by the net amount received to my BTC wallet at either Coinbase or Bittrex. So far NH has dinged me 2% for transferring from the NH miner to the NH wallet (which is outrageous, if you think about it) but doesn't charge a transfer fee to send the BTC to Coinbase. Conversely, I will have to pay a transaction fee to send the BTC accumulated at MPH, Zergpool, Ahashpool, etc., on to either Coinbase or Bittrex, but that fee changes on a minute-by-minute basis so who knows what the net amount will be.

No, the usual definition of "wakeonlan" is an option in the BIOS that turns on the computer when message traffic is addressed to its ethernet port; it has nothing to do with the mining software. I already told you what you need to do; the longer you delay doing it the longer someone else is likely using your computer to mine for them.

In other words, RTFM... Or in this case, the whitepaper.

But that's not quite what I am driving at here, rather, it's that what the aforementioned calculator asks for and what the wallet gives you appear to be different.

Surely you don't expect everyone who wishes to stake their TZC coins to have to read and understand the whitepaper first? That would be analogous to requiring every person who uses US dollars to first understand how the federal reserve works; while you could argue - and technically be right - that people /should/ understand the Fed, it's unrealistic to expect or demand it as a precondition for the use of their money.

So I guess what I am trying to emphasize here is that it should be easy for the average Joe who wants to use TZC as a general form of payment and storage of value to easily determine the interest rate, so to speak, from parking their coins in their wallet (ie - staking them).

I'm not asking you to explain it to me like I'm 5 - or even explain it all, really - but I am asking the wallet and/or coin devs to consider making the staking function of the wallet a bit more user-friendly.

I'm very tempted to end this test early on account of MiningPoolHub still running about 20% behind NH.

Two days after I started the MPH vs. NH test I also started testing Zergpool which has an option to mine multiple coins with the same algo (in this case Neoscrypt) then auto-convert to BTC. This is with a single RX 570 and it is already up to 0.46253 mBTC; meanwhile the GTX 1080 mining on MPH is only at 1.07614 mBTC, despite that it can hash Neoscrypt almost twice as fast as the RX 570 and has a two day head start to boot.

The next comparison was going to be Ahashpool vs. NiceHash, but now I am thinking Ahashpool vs. Zergpool could be interesting. While it's not quite as statistically valid if the winner of one round doesn't proceed to the next, I'm not sure I have the patience/willpower to tie up a GTX 1080 for another week on NH if Zergpool shows real promise.

I only managed to amass 9 cards before prices went completely nuts, and haven't even bothered trying to buy more in the last couple of weeks. Instead I've been kicking around the idea of getting some used server blades and setting them up for cryptonight, or maybe some bare, single PCIe-x16 slot Ryzen mobos for the same (single GPU slot should make it much less desirable for mining, methinks).

It's not an error, it means that someone (maybe you, maybe a hacker) opened up a remote port that can now control your miner as it has read and write access. You better shut down the miner and check all your payout addresses on the pool side as I bet they have been changed.

Then look for a way to shut down the remote port in your miner, or else configure it for output only (ie - reporting statistics, rather than receiving commands).

I'm just trying out NH in a head-to-head comparison against other multi-algo, auto-switching pools (currently comparing with MiningPoolHub) and I also noticed NH switching to, for example, "keccak" when that algo was only earning about half as much per day. I ended up disabling that algo, as well as all the dual-mining choices (because ASICs) and earnings seem to have stabilized.

HOWEVER, that leads me to a question germane to this thread (I hope): where can I find my total earnings? It seems that after NH does a payout the running total in the miner resets to 0 BTC - which is expected - but when I log in to my account I can't find any listing of payouts, earnings, etc... everything shows 0. Needless to say this is alarming, but I am assuming for now this is just the result of my unfamiliarity with NH, and not something nefarious (like, say, hackers stealing all the BTC... that would never happen, right?   )

EDIT - nevermind, the balance just showed up in my NH wallet. I guess it takes 7+ hours to confirm. BTC is just about useless, isn't it?

Yeah, NH can bring such a huge amount of hashpower to bear on any algo, so if the coin that is the "flavor of the minute" has a tiny float (er, circulating supply) then difficulty skyrockets, locking out the small miners while NH simultaneously shoots itself in the foot and vacuums all the coins. Their business model is kind of nutty, actually.

As for hsrminer, almost every time I've run it - note that "almost" - it starts off roaring then mysteriously drops by a certain percentage after awhile. Usually the hashrate drops after 1-3 hours, but there have been times where the hashrate was stable for more than 6 hours, so I'm not sure what to think about that.

However, in every single case so far the actual earnings have been substantially lower than the hashrate would otherwise have me believe; in my latest test I earned 76% of the coins that hsrminer said I would after 8 hours of run time on a pool that finds a block every 4 minutes (so a short run time is less likely to skew the earnings). That would make hsrminer slower than its closest competitor, ccminer-klaust 8.19, but I will need to run the latter on the same pool for the same length of time to confirm that.

As for NH's benchmarking, I can't say for sure whether it is based on client-side reported hashrate, or server-side reported shares... The latter would be more accurate but people might complain about getting shortchanged enough to make NH not use it.

Ah, gotcha. The 2 Neoscrypt coins I have been mining directly are Feathercoin and Trezarcoin, but FTC is only rarely worth mining, I've noticed (based on difficulty vs. price); if FTC is the only choice of Neoscrypt coin on MPH then I can definitely see your point.

So it looks like I need to do comparison between whichever pool wins this round and Ahashpool, then.

Sorry, but I have no idea how to translate the data given by the wallet into what that calculator requires to proceed. Also, I have yet to find stats on PoS difficulty (the difficulty for mining is no problem) without which the whole exercise is moot.

The way I see it, estimating the probability of receiving a stake should depend only on the following:

# of coins
age of each coin (or average age of all coins)
PoS difficulty

Where do inputs and # of coins per input and age of transaction come into play?

Nope, haven't tried Ahashpool. I've looked at the website, but that's about it. I'm curious as to why you think MPH sucks for Nvidia - Nemosminer seems to use Neoscrypt, Equihash and Skein the most and the GTX 1080 does well on all of those algos - or are you saying that Cryptonight, Groestl/Myriad-Groestl coins are the most profitable on MPH (but wouldn't that change on a minute-by-minute basis?)?

Yeah, I have to say I feel exceptionally dirty even testing NH out, but I'm doing it in the name of science. I know NH can totally wreck new coins by pumping up difficulty so high your earnings get cut by 90% or more - I saw that with DERO, for example - but I feel I have to test them out to make sure I am not leaving the proverbial turn unstoned. Or something like that.

I did figure that comparing the two auto-switching miners concurrently for 1 week would be fair overall, but if not I'm not sure I want to tie up 2 rigs for more than 1 week, anyway. At some point these things need to start earning their keep, after all. 

I've got quite a circus going on right now, actually, with 4 separate rigs doing different things at the same time. The relevant comparison here is between Nemosminer on MiningPoolHub vs. NiceHash Miner straight out of the box, so to speak. Both Nemosminer/MiningPoolHub and NiceHash are auto-switching between algorithms - and not always choosing the same one, I might add - and each get their own GTX 1080 to use (running on separate computers).

I also have a 3rd rig running a Neoscrypt miner (Gateless Gate - AMD only) on Zergpool which auto-switches between multiple coins of the same algorithm and converts all proceeds to BTC, just like Nemosminer and NiceHash. I am mainly testing Zergpool out of curiosity, but am prepared to be surprised should it show up the multi-algo auto-switching miners.